To build further upon my earlier post, what it really boiled down to was the idea that Christians need to be accountable, to Christ and to each other. A lot of the current problems within the Episcopal Church boil down to the fact that the current leadership do not see themselves as accountable- to the members of tEC, to the people they are supposedly in the Anglican Communion with, to their traditions and dogma, and not even to their own constitution and canons.

Do you know about the Diocese of Sydney? tEC is not the only one that have been accused of not being accountable.

How do you explain the multiple overlapping "jurisdictions" in Orthodoxy, some of which have significant barriers to unity and function in a quasi-denominational way? Technically, Many Protestant bodies are in communion with each other in the same technical sense as the jurisdictions in Orthodoxy.

I actually believe postmodernism will be beneficial for Christian unity because it will allow people to see the limitations of the overly precise theological distinctions that many churches make.

I've explored the idea of the branch theory- frankly I'm uncomfortable with the idea of apostolicity being reduced to a bishop's magic hands on somebody, which is usually used to exclude Lutherans and so on. But I'm also not all on board with the Orthodox ecclessiology either.

To build further upon my earlier post, what it really boiled down to was the idea that Christians need to be accountable, to Christ and to each other. A lot of the current problems within the Episcopal Church boil down to the fact that the current leadership do not see themselves as accountable- to the members of tEC, to the people they are supposedly in the Anglican Communion with, to their traditions and dogma, and not even to their own constitution and canons. The same problem exhibited itself in my own Evangelical upbringing- there was no Communion as such, just a bunch of different churches where anyone could go off and start a new church under the same denomination, just because they didn't like the current pastor, or because they didn't feel the church was mission focused enough, or because they felt the church was donating too much to missions, or because the local pet store owner happened to put money in the collection plate and that's a violation of Deuteronomy 23:18 (KJV- don't consider that too much of an outlier, such things actually happened in the South).

The members of the Church, as members of the Body of Christ, must be accountable. They must be willing to sacrifice their myriad private interpretations for their brothers' sake. They must be willing to submit to the presbyters of the Church, as St Paul says in many places. This goes for every member, from layman all the way up to the Archbishops, Patriarchs, etc- they are accountable to Holy Tradition, to the Faith Once Delivered.

The widespread denominationalism that has reigned since the Reformation is the furthest thing from the evidence of the New Testament as regards what the Church should be. We were called to all be one, as Our Lord and the Father are One. We are called to recognize that we cannot say to our brother "I do not need you" any more than a foot can say to the hand "get out of here!" Yet, that is exactly what the history of the Reformation is (though not to place undue blame upon Luther- he was perfectly willing to reconcile with Rome at first). Rome says to Luther "We don't need you," Calvin says to Luther and Rome, "I don't need you- Predestination is more important!" The Anabaptists didn't need the paedobaptists, Henry VIII didn't need Catherine, the Separatists didn't need the Church of England,and so on. It might be possible to recognize individual members of these groups as Christians (and I for one would be willing to engage in the weapon of choice at dawn anyone who would deny the Christianity of Lewis, Chesterton, Tolkien, or Billy Graham), it is absolutely impossible to recognize these groups as The Church.

+1

Logged

We owe greater gratitude to those who humble us, wrong us, and douse us with venom, than to those who nurse us with honour and sweet words, or feed us with tasty food and confections, for bile is the best medicine for our soul. - Elder Paisios of Mount Athos

The original post seems to describe one faction in Anglicanism, the traditional Evangelicals/Low Churchmen, which is what the African conservatives are. Definitely Protestant. The jury's out in Anglicanism on whether the claim to apostolic bishops is necessary, as in the pre-'Reformation' churches, Catholicism and the East, or not (the Swedish Lutheran position; they claim the succession too, not recognized by Rome).

Growing up an Episcopalian (because my father left the Catholic Church before I was born), High Churchmen including good crypto-Catholics taught me the episcopate is necessary to be fully the church. (Ironically, because they're semi-congregational, meaning parishes have a lot of autonomy, they taught me good pre-Vatican II liturgics when the Catholic Church wanted nothing to do with it anymore; thanks.)

The original post describes classical 'Reformation' Anglicanism on Holy Communion and Holy Orders as the Anglican Articles of Religion teach.

Basically now in Anglicanism you have three factions; used to be four. The battle royale in the denomination is between the white First World (British and American) liberals and the conservative Evangelicals (such as their remaining Calvinists; most of the Africans and some of the Brits). The liberals won in the Episcopal Church; in England, a largely irreligious country, the liberals and Evangelicals are in a standoff in the Church of England. The liberals are a spectrum, high liturgically (they love our stuff) and often believing what we do about the sacraments BUT ranging in their beliefs from accepting the teachings of the creeds to agnosticism, etc.; they're all on board with women priests and gay marriage, which they believe are self-evident truths about justice, which is why they're not Catholic or Orthodox. The third faction is middle-of-the-road, sort of like ELCA Lutheran with whom the Episcopalians are now sort of merged, theologically and liturgically moderate. They're skewing more liberal now that the Episcopalians are voting out conservative beliefs. The fourth faction, crypto-Catholics, are mostly becoming Catholic now that it's clear they lost the battle for the denomination. They were called Anglo-Catholics; now, the high-church liberals are likely to use that moniker, confusing since the earlier A-Cs were doctrinally conservative, imitating Rome.

St Raphael of Brooklyn was right: you don't know who in a given moment you're dealing with.

Ecumenical talks:

Catholics and Orthodox: Do you believe X? (Meaning: Do you believe it's an essential part of the church that all the faithful must believe?)Anglicans: Yes. (We allow it as an opinion but don't require it.)

The big difference from us Catholics and Orthodox is right in their Articles XIX and XXI: they believe the church is fallible therefore fungible, so they can and do change essentials by voting on them. Which is why they have women clergy and are about to have gay marriage. When you see that they believe in a fallible church, you realize their liberal moves in recent decades were inevitable. Throughout mainline Protestantism, including them, apostasy, formal rejection of the teaching of the creeds, is only a vote away.

By the way, it seems that most English Calvinists including the Anglicans lost their faith at the 'Enlightenment'. Lots of America's founding fathers, such as George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, and Benjamin Franklin, were unbelieving nominal Anglicans. The Sixties only made it more obvious.

Catholicism and Orthodoxy have slightly different approaches to the same one-true-church claim. There is an allowable hardline Catholic opinion that all non-Catholics are going to hell. But Catholicism teaches that the Orthodox have grace: real bishops, real Mass. The Orthodox, on the other hand, allow the opinion that since the schism, Catholicism has been a fraud; you don't have to believe that but you may.

The Holy Spirit binds us together with all believers, living and dead, including the Apostles. That makes us Apostolic.

A spirit may bind the protestants together, but it surely isn't the Holy Spirit. The Apostles and the saints have nothing to do with Protestantism.

Don't buy that triumphalist nonsense. They might be outside of the Church but they still love God and do good deeds. That is defininitely an act of Holy Spirit. Boundaries of the Church are not boundaries of Grace.

Loving God and doing good deeds isn't the point. Have a look at these verses from Scripture:

1. 2 Corinthians 11:4 "For if someone comes to you and preaches a Jesus other than the Jesus we preached, or if you receive a different spirit from the Spirit you received, or a different gospel from the one you accepted, you put up with it easily enough."

2. Mark 7:9 "And he continued, "You have a fine way of setting aside the commands of God in order to observe your own traditions!"

3. Galatians 1:6 "I am astonished that you are so quickly deserting the one who called you to live in the grace of Christ and are turning to a different gospel--"

4. 1 Timothy 1:3 "As I urged you when I went into Macedonia, stay there in Ephesus so that you may command certain people not to teach false doctrines any longer."

St. Theophan the Recluse wrote an excellent little book titled, "Preaching Another Christ." that I highly recommend. Simply because a group can claim that they 'love God and do good deeds' doesn't mean anything. If Eastern Orthodoxy isn't the only Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church, then what's the point of fighting for it? Protestants may invoke the Apostles' names, but the Apostles themselves have nothing to do with them. Truth isn't triumphalist nonsense.

Logged

"The Scots-Irish; Brewed in Scotland, bottled in Ireland, uncorked in America." ~Scots-Irish saying

Throughout mainline Protestantism, including them, apostasy, formal rejection of the teaching of the creeds, is only a vote away.

I don't think that's necessarily true for Episcopalians, but only time will tell: a few years ago the tEC refused to ordain a priest named Thew Forrester to the Episcopate. Rev. Forrester had experience as a Zen master in addition to being an Episcopal priest and it heavily influenced his theology to the point that he had a low view of human depravity, and Forrester's views of sin seemed to merge too much with Buddhist concepts of illusion. The reason they did so was because he seemed to deny the traditional doctrine of sin and our need for redemption. I see this as a positive step, a denomination known for accomodation finally taking some kind of stand.

Throughout mainline Protestantism, including them, apostasy, formal rejection of the teaching of the creeds, is only a vote away.

I don't think that's necessarily true for Episcopalians, but only time will tell: a few years ago the tEC refused to ordain a priest named Thew Forrester to the Episcopate. Rev. Forrester had experience as a Zen master in addition to being an Episcopal priest and it heavily influenced his theology to the point that he had a low view of human depravity, and Forrester's views of sin seemed to merge too much with Buddhist concepts of illusion. The reason they did so was because he seemed to deny the traditional doctrine of sin and our need for redemption. I see this as a positive step, a denomination known for accommodation finally taking some kind of stand.

My statement stands. That they chose not to consecrate him doesn't mean they won't consecrate someone like him someday. The fact that John Spong remains a retired bishop in good standing points to that.

I think mainline apostasy is just about inevitable and will be subtle, like how many people think their Unitarian offshoot is still Christian. Ever since the 1920s fundamentalist/Modernist wars in some mainline denominations and ever since the Sixties, the mainline's just about caught up with it. Denomination by denomination they will vote to make belief in the teachings of the creeds optional, but won't tell Grandma she can't believe in Jesus. Since locally they've been disregarded for so long, hardly anybody will notice the difference.

The short way to understand Anglicanism is anything goes and if not Anglican's will vote it in or vote it out. Question is can we even call Anglican's an "ism" anymore

Yup. William F. Buckley Jr., a Catholic, once quipped that, after Anglicanism more openly liberalized in the Sixties, no one from the Pope to Mao Tse-Tung could be sure he is not an Anglican.

You touch on a reason for mainline decline. They do everything the secular world wants but people still leave. The liberals don't need those denominations anymore. Conservative churches are declining too but not as much. The mainline rightly sees the triumph of political correctness in Western society as a victory for it. Political correctness is a Christian heresy. So, sort of like the British acting like Dunkirk was a victory, they claim the now non-religious liberals are still in some sense liberal Christians like them. Numbers, schnumbers; only bigoted conservative Christians keep count. And/or they blame their decline, their now being passé in society, on... not being liberal enough. So you get books and articles such as Spong's Why Christianity Must Change or Die.

Episcopalianism took that and its Anglo-Catholic movement (really dating from the late 1800s) and has tried to reinvent/market itself as a 'cool' Catholicism for 'thinking people', different from old-school Anglo-Catholicism, which doctrinally imitated Catholicism. This has both conservative (they like our stuff, our liturgies, our classical music; they don't necessarily worship like Catholic liberals; in contrast, liberal high church is nearly unknown in Catholicism) and of course liberal aspects (now they have divorce and remarriage, have women clergy, and approve homosexuality). That's why many Episcopal priests go by 'Father' and say they're not Protestants. They're not fundamentalists and are liturgical and sacramental. Not wannabe Catholics like the old A-Cs but sort of Catholic on their own terms, which Catholicism thinks is contradictory. But ex-Protestant liberals don't buy it... and neither do one of the Episcopalians' target markets, American Catholics such as the many lapsed or who don't accept all the church's teachings. Even when they're told what they want to hear, such people know better and don't fall for this. They're more likely to stay lax/lapsed or just leave and not go somewhere else. (Easier now in America, where no one cares anymore if you go to church.)

You touch on a reason for mainline decline. They do everything the secular world wants but people still leave. The liberals don't need those denominations anymore. Conservative churches are declining too but not as much. The mainline rightly sees the triumph of political correctness in Western society as a victory for it. Political correctness is a Christian heresy.

There's more diversity in the Episcopal Church than your broad-brush appraisal allows.

There is a huge amount of individualism in tEC (like the rest of American mainline Protestantism) but to characterize it all as a capitulation to political correctness is silly.

Look, the largest growth in US Christianity has been among people that think that Christianity is best practiced as voodoo- I'm speaking of the worst excesses of Pentecostalism and the Word of Faith movement. In that respect, the fact the Episcopal Church is in decline doesn't say much against the Episcopal Church, it speaks rather to a culture that wants a religion of power and control but not responsibility or sacrifice. The Episcopal Church is not so distant from the Orthodox Church in comparison. Both present relatively thoughtful, deep spiritualities and expressions of the Christian faith in comparison to the faddishness of most churches.

You touch on a reason for mainline decline. They do everything the secular world wants but people still leave. The liberals don't need those denominations anymore. Conservative churches are declining too but not as much. The mainline rightly sees the triumph of political correctness in Western society as a victory for it. Political correctness is a Christian heresy.

There's more diversity in the Episcopal Church than your broad-brush appraisal allows.

There is a huge amount of individualism in tEC (like the rest of American mainline Protestantism) but to characterize it all as a capitulation to political correctness is silly.

Look, the largest growth in US Christianity has been among people that think that Christianity is best practiced as voodoo- I'm speaking of the worst excesses of Pentecostalism and the Word of Faith movement. In that respect, the fact the Episcopal Church is in decline doesn't say much against the Episcopal Church, it speaks rather to a culture that wants a religion of power and control but not responsibility or sacrifice. The Episcopal Church is not so distant from the Orthodox Church in comparison. Both present relatively thoughtful, deep spiritualities and expressions of the Christian faith in comparison to the faddishness of most churches.

I know it's diverse. As I wrote earlier, that's thanks to its semi-congregationalism, which is why there were crypto-Catholics in it to teach me as a kid and why there are a very few such relative conservatives in it to this day, pretty much continuing the religion where I got my start. (I won't name names and places, in order to protect the holy.) But given the way the national denomination is going, for how much longer can they last? (That capitulation to political correctness is exactly what your national church is about; what's to stop it?) That's why those conservatives don't get too much sympathy from me. The Episcopal Church, just like the Catholic Church and the Orthodox Church, has the right to govern itself. If you choose to stay, liberalism's what you get.

Quote

In that respect, the fact the Episcopal Church is in decline doesn't say much against the Episcopal Church, it speaks rather to a culture that wants a religion of power and control but not responsibility or sacrifice.

Self-congratulatory liberal BS. Conservative churches have responsibility and sacrifice, and while they're losing people to secularism too (the Orthodox lose the third generation, who are less ethnic), they're not hemorrhaging members like you mainline denominations are.

Someone elsewhere observed that the mainline does relatively well where Christianity is still strong and conservative, living parasitically off conservative churches by taking in their liberal ex-members (ex-Catholics and ex-evangelicals), sort of a holding pen for them in places where churchgoing's still expected or people still habitually go to church for cultural reasons. Where the society's gone mostly secular, the mainline fails. It's passé. The liberals don't need it anymore. That's why your membership in blue-state America's cratered.

Quote

The Episcopal Church is not so distant from the Orthodox Church in comparison. Both present relatively thoughtful, deep spiritualities and expressions of the Christian faith in comparison to the faddishness of most churches.

Sort of. Newman said to know history is to cease to be Protestant, so by reading the history and the church fathers with a really liberal open mind, and with old high-church Anglicanism's belief in the consensus of the pre-'Reformation' churches/Vincentian canon as a standard, you will come very close to Catholicism and Orthodoxy. Your denomination's liberal high churchmen are like that, sharing with us belief in the teaching of the creeds, more or less the same views on the sacraments, and a love of our liturgies. But your belief in a fallible, fungible church ultimately make the Episcopal and other mainliners' way a dead end. You end up creating a God in your own image, by vote. Just like the Pentecostals and Word of Faithers you look down on (and criticize not without justification). 'Jesus of Narcissists.'

P.S. Interestingly the Episcopal Church's main rival for recruiting and retaining members isn't the Catholic Church but, competing for the rich white liberal spirituality demographic (baby-boomers), other English ex-Calvinist mainliners, the United Church of Christ (the Pilgrims gone granola) and their non-Christian offshoot, the Unitarian Universalists.

Hold on, Fogey... I talked to a group of Orthodox last week that told me that bishops can err, churches can err... There's even prayers for the Church (why do that if it is infallible?) I don't think that's different from what the Anglicans say about themselves. Somebody even pointed out Maximos the Confessor as a good example of everybody getting it wrong. I think something similar is happening in the Episcopal Church. But I'm not convinced this suddenly makes the whole thing illegitimate, or hopeless. I'm willing to continue to study the issue though and hear more sides of it. My own hope is maybe like in the Church of England, evangelicals can take back the denomination somewhat. Perhaps that's not realistic. I do think the decisions that some of the diocese made around 2003-2005 to leave over Gene Robinson were very unfortunate, they have only weakened the conservative voice in the church further, and not really lead to those groups being accepted by the Anglican Communion as a whole. Probably why more conservatives have not left, because there's nowhere for them to go.

By the way, I'm accomodating of gay people in the Church and even ministry. Not exactly a liberal like +Schori but I don't agree that this is an issue the Bible is absolutely clear about, i'm open to listening to theologians debate this. Having said that, I'm not a fan of political correctness for its own sake, and I do wonder if the church can keep up a Christian identity if it keeps trying to be indiscriminately inclusive of every possible viewpoint.

Hold on, Fogey... I talked to a group of Orthodox last week that told me that bishops can err, churches can err... There's even prayers for the Church (why do that if it is infallible?) I don't think that's different from what the Anglicans say about themselves. Somebody even pointed out Maximos the Confessor as a good example of everybody getting it wrong. I think something similar is happening in the Episcopal Church. But I'm not convinced this suddenly makes the whole thing illegitimate, or hopeless. I'm willing to continue to study the issue though and hear more sides of it. My own hope is maybe like in the Church of England, evangelicals can take back the denomination somewhat. Perhaps that's not realistic. I do think the decisions that some of the diocese made around 2003-2005 to leave over Gene Robinson were very unfortunate, they have only weakened the conservative voice in the church further, and not really lead to those groups being accepted by the Anglican Communion as a whole. Probably why more conservatives have not left, because there's nowhere for them to go.

By the way, I'm accommodating of gay people in the Church and even ministry. Not exactly a liberal like +Schori but I don't agree that this is an issue the Bible is absolutely clear about, i'm open to listening to theologians debate this. Having said that, I'm not a fan of political correctness for its own sake, and I do wonder if the church can keep up a Christian identity if it keeps trying to be indiscriminately inclusive of every possible viewpoint.

Very Anglican; well put (that famous English well-spokenness) but I'm not buying. Many/most here say the Catholic Church erred and left the Orthodox Church but that Orthodoxy is infallible. I can't imagine educated real Orthodox saying the church is fallible.

Literally, Catholicism and Orthodoxy, and I imagine conservative Protestantism, are 'accommodating of gay people'. When I was a child, conservative Christians told me not to pick on homosexuals (vs. 'that's so gay' learned on the playground). I've known several people who were gay, and Catholic, but don't call them gay Catholics. Of course 'accommodating of gay people' really means 'changing teaching so homosexuality's not a sin but something good'. No sale.

Fogey, it seems to me if you think the essential bit of being a Christian is making sure homosexuality is always regarded as a sin, and not just a sin but a sin that is so vile it prohibits a person from participating in holy orders, something is very, very wrong with your spiritual formation.

This issue is blowing apart the Anglican world. Its sad too ,because I don't think honestly alot of conservative Anglicans would measure up to Orthodox standards of ascesis, judging by their waistlines. The whole debate exposes how much the church has become infested with cultural concerns, conservative or liberal - that issue, and that alone, is perhaps the most damning.

Well, in your American denomination the liberals won. Worldwide in your denomination it's a battle between two kinds of Protestantism, dueling biblical interpretations, one of which happens to still agree with Catholicism and Orthodoxy. If you really think Catholicism and Orthodoxy are bigoted for not changing on homosexuality, then stop baiting an Orthodox board.

Well, in your American denomination the liberals won. Worldwide in your denomination it's a battle between two kinds of Protestantism, dueling biblical interpretations, one of which happens to still agree with Catholicism and Orthodoxy. If you really think Catholicism and Orthodoxy are bigoted for not changing on homosexuality, then stop baiting an Orthodox board.

I don't mind him so much. Kind of reminds me of a younger me, when a different day of the week would see me radically liberal or reactionarily conservative. Of course, I kept my antics limited to titus19, but it's all cool

« Last Edit: May 20, 2013, 12:14:16 AM by FormerReformer »

Logged

"Funny," said Lancelot, "how the people who can't pray say that prayers are not answered, however much the people who can pray say they are." TH White

Well, in your American denomination the liberals won. Worldwide in your denomination it's a battle between two kinds of Protestantism, dueling biblical interpretations, one of which happens to still agree with Catholicism and Orthodoxy. If you really think Catholicism and Orthodoxy are bigoted for not changing on homosexuality, then stop baiting an Orthodox board.

I don't mind him so much. Kind of reminds me of a younger me, when a different day of the week would see me radically liberal or reactionarily conservative. Of course, I kept my antics limited to titus19, but it's all cool

Again, that's Episcopalianism's charm for Episcopalians. Liberal high church: the creeds, the sacraments and the traditional liturgy, but going along with secular culture on everything else. You can be divorced and remarried, use contraception and even be pro-abortion. Conservative or liberal, depending, in a mix that's unknown among American Catholics.

Well, in your American denomination the liberals won. Worldwide in your denomination it's a battle between two kinds of Protestantism, dueling biblical interpretations, one of which happens to still agree with Catholicism and Orthodoxy. If you really think Catholicism and Orthodoxy are bigoted for not changing on homosexuality, then stop baiting an Orthodox board.

I don't mind him so much. Kind of reminds me of a younger me, when a different day of the week would see me radically liberal or reactionarily conservative. Of course, I kept my antics limited to titus19, but it's all cool

Again, that's Episcopalianism's charm for Episcopalians. Liberal high church: the creeds, the sacraments and the traditional liturgy, but going along with secular culture on everything else. You can be divorced and remarried, use contraception and even be pro-abortion. Conservative or liberal, depending, in a mix that's unknown among American Catholics.

Huh? Most of the Catholics I know have a very strange mixture religious and secular beliefs. I know very few Catholics that don't use contraception (obviously in contrast to what the church teaches). Many of them are divorced and remarried and some of the don't even believe in transubstantiation. While the church takes a more conservative stance, many adherents in the US are no different than Episcopalians, unfortunately.

Well, in your American denomination the liberals won. Worldwide in your denomination it's a battle between two kinds of Protestantism, dueling biblical interpretations, one of which happens to still agree with Catholicism and Orthodoxy. If you really think Catholicism and Orthodoxy are bigoted for not changing on homosexuality, then stop baiting an Orthodox board.

I don't mind him so much. Kind of reminds me of a younger me, when a different day of the week would see me radically liberal or reactionarily conservative. Of course, I kept my antics limited to titus19, but it's all cool

Again, that's Episcopalianism's charm for Episcopalians. Liberal high church: the creeds, the sacraments and the traditional liturgy, but going along with secular culture on everything else. You can be divorced and remarried, use contraception and even be pro-abortion. Conservative or liberal, depending, in a mix that's unknown among American Catholics.

Huh? Most of the Catholics I know have a very strange mixture religious and secular beliefs. I know very few Catholics that don't use contraception (obviously in contrast to what the church teaches). Many of them are divorced and remarried and some of the don't even believe in transubstantiation. While the church takes a more conservative stance, many adherents in the US are no different than Episcopalians, unfortunately.

Of course. Most Catholics don't live up to the teachings. Many say they don't agree with the teachings. (Like lots of ethnic Orthodox aren't religious.) But I mean something a little different. High-culture lovers of classical music and great art who are high-church, preferring the Tridentine Mass, the Liturgy of St John Chrysostom/St Basil, and the King James Bible and old Book of Common Prayer to a modernized guitar Mass, and are liberal in principle, not just practice, about divorce and remarriage, contraception, abortion, homosexuality, and women clergy are almost exclusively Anglican, particularly Episcopal (the official American Anglicans). They are almost unknown in American Catholicism.

American Catholics tend to run liturgically conservative/socially and politically conservative (religious Americans generally are more likely to be Republicans now) or liturgically/socially/politically liberal. (The number of American Catholic Obama supporters who love the Tridentine Mass must be microscopic.)

Because of all the land in Manhattan that the British king/queen deeded to Trinity Church, Wall Street, the Episcopal Church is still America's richest denomination and would remain so even if nobody goes there anymore.

Before upper-class WASPs went all granola after the Sixties, Episcopalians used to be good Masonic secular Republicans. People like America's founding fathers, many of whom were Episcopalians and Masons. Episcopalianism's long been a home to 'Enlightenment' skeptic gentlemen who want to promote mannerly WASP values and think religion is good for society even if it's not true. I don't agree with them on religion but politically they were great. Old-school, old-republic, small-government, laissez-faire capitalists. Barry Goldwater, a conservative but secular, was one of them (his father was Jewish as he sometimes pointed out) and was their man; I would have voted for him.

An exception: Anglo-Catholics, as part of their imitation of Rome, often were politically left-wing, imitating Catholic social teaching (really opinion), believing in a kind of holy socialism, a lot like the leftism fashionable among the Catholic and mainline Protestant churchy today, but economically left-wing, socially right-wing, like official Catholic opinion now. Welfare state but family-values and anti-abortion (until the middle of the last century, all Christians agreed with Catholicism on sexual issues).

Anglicanism, with its mix of conservative high culture and liberal values, has long appealed to male homosexuals, particularly Anglo-Catholicism despite its former conservatism imitating Rome. (Because of its colorful ceremonies.) There are downtown Episcopal churches that are now hangouts for them; no women (except maybe some of the paid singers in the choir, who might not be parishioners) and no kids. A reason Anglo-Catholicism's lasting effect was to turn Episcopalianism into liberal high churchmanship.

If you really think Catholicism and Orthodoxy are bigoted for not changing on homosexuality, then stop baiting an Orthodox board.

I don't necessarily think Orthodox or Catholics that regard homosexuality as a sin are bigoted. The problem is that these subtleties are often lost.

Trisagion's insights are largely what I see too... one of the reasons I never "jump ship" to Rome, besides the dubious papal claims, is because American Catholicism is just as individualistic and nominalist, maybe even moreso, than Episcopalianism. The priests in America can be extremely liberal, no matter what Rome says, and Catholic liturgy is not particularly impressive now days.

Well, in your American denomination the liberals won. Worldwide in your denomination it's a battle between two kinds of Protestantism, dueling biblical interpretations, one of which happens to still agree with Catholicism and Orthodoxy. If you really think Catholicism and Orthodoxy are bigoted for not changing on homosexuality, then stop baiting an Orthodox board.

I don't mind him so much. Kind of reminds me of a younger me, when a different day of the week would see me radically liberal or reactionarily conservative. Of course, I kept my antics limited to titus19, but it's all cool

Again, that's Episcopalianism's charm for Episcopalians. Liberal high church: the creeds, the sacraments and the traditional liturgy, but going along with secular culture on everything else. You can be divorced and remarried, use contraception and even be pro-abortion. Conservative or liberal, depending, in a mix that's unknown among American Catholics.

Huh? Most of the Catholics I know have a very strange mixture religious and secular beliefs. I know very few Catholics that don't use contraception (obviously in contrast to what the church teaches). Many of them are divorced and remarried and some of the don't even believe in transubstantiation. While the church takes a more conservative stance, many adherents in the US are no different than Episcopalians, unfortunately.

Of course. Most Catholics don't live up to the teachings. Many say they don't agree with the teachings. (Like lots of ethnic Orthodox aren't religious.) But I mean something a little different. High-culture lovers of classical music and great art who are high-church, preferring the Tridentine Mass, the Liturgy of St John Chrysostom/St Basil, and the King James Bible and old Book of Common Prayer to a modernized guitar Mass, and are liberal in principle, not just practice, about divorce and remarriage, contraception, abortion, homosexuality, and women clergy are almost exclusively Anglican, particularly Episcopal (the official American Anglicans). They are almost unknown in American Catholicism.

American Catholics tend to run liturgically conservative/socially and politically conservative (religious Americans generally are more likely to be Republicans now) or liturgically/socially/politically liberal. (The number of American Catholic Obama supporters who love the Tridentine Mass must be microscopic.)

Because of all the land in Manhattan that the British king/queen deeded to Trinity Church, Wall Street, the Episcopal Church is still America's richest denomination and would remain so even if nobody goes there anymore.

Before upper-class WASPs went all granola after the Sixties, Episcopalians used to be good Masonic secular Republicans. People like America's founding fathers, many of whom were Episcopalians and Masons. Episcopalianism's long been a home to 'Enlightenment' skeptic gentlemen who want to promote mannerly WASP values and think religion is good for society even if it's not true. I don't agree with them on religion but politically they were great. Old-school, old-republic, small-government, laissez-faire capitalists. Barry Goldwater, a conservative but secular, was one of them (his father was Jewish as he sometimes pointed out) and was their man; I would have voted for him.

An exception: Anglo-Catholics, as part of their imitation of Rome, often were politically left-wing, imitating Catholic social teaching (really opinion), believing in a kind of holy socialism, a lot like the leftism fashionable among the Catholic and mainline Protestant churchy today, but economically left-wing, socially right-wing, like official Catholic opinion now. Welfare state but family-values and anti-abortion (until the middle of the last century, all Christians agreed with Catholicism on sexual issues).

Anglicanism, with its mix of conservative high culture and liberal values, has long appealed to male homosexuals, particularly Anglo-Catholicism despite its former conservatism imitating Rome. (Because of its colorful ceremonies.) There are downtown Episcopal churches that are now hangouts for them; no women (except maybe some of the paid singers in the choir, who might not be parishioners) and no kids. A reason Anglo-Catholicism's lasting effect was to turn Episcopalianism into liberal high churchmanship.

Excuse me/простите меня; I thought this board was for grownups who can talk politely about American political history as it relates to American cultural and religious history. I'll never plug my politics here again.

Excuse me/простите меня; I thought this board was for grownups who can talk politely about American political history as it relates to American cultural and religious history. I'll never plug my politics here again.

Nope, politics go to the politics board in the private forum. You can discuss it to your hearts content in there. All you need to do is PM Fr. George for access. I believe you would enjoy the heated debates that go on in there.

Excuse me/простите меня; I thought this board was for grownups who can talk politely about American political history as it relates to American cultural and religious history. I'll never plug my politics here again.

What you posted was borderline. I understand your intent. At the same time, though, you made some statements that could be perceived as partisan and enough reference to U.S. politics that, even if it wasn't partisan, others could have taken it that way and taken discussion of your post in directions not permitted on this board. I therefore posted my directive more to them than to you.

I am disturbed, though, by your response to my directive. Public questioning of, arguing with, or sarcastic backtalk in response to moderatorial directives (as appears to be the case here) is not permitted on OC.net and will draw harsh discipline if it continues. If you wish to offer any more response to my no-politics directive, then I ask that you take that up with me in private message. I will not permit any more discussion of my directive here.

The original post seems to describe one faction in Anglicanism, the traditional Evangelicals/Low Churchmen, which is what the African conservatives are. Definitely Protestant. The jury's out in Anglicanism on whether the claim to apostolic bishops is necessary, as in the pre-'Reformation' churches, Catholicism and the East, or not (the Swedish Lutheran position; they claim the succession too, not recognized by Rome).

Growing up an Episcopalian (because my father left the Catholic Church before I was born), High Churchmen including good crypto-Catholics taught me the episcopate is necessary to be fully the church. (Ironically, because they're semi-congregational, meaning parishes have a lot of autonomy, they taught me good pre-Vatican II liturgics when the Catholic Church wanted nothing to do with it anymore; thanks.)

The original post describes classical 'Reformation' Anglicanism on Holy Communion and Holy Orders as the Anglican Articles of Religion teach.

Basically now in Anglicanism you have three factions; used to be four. The battle royale in the denomination is between the white First World (British and American) liberals and the conservative Evangelicals (such as their remaining Calvinists; most of the Africans and some of the Brits). The liberals won in the Episcopal Church; in England, a largely irreligious country, the liberals and Evangelicals are in a standoff in the Church of England. The liberals are a spectrum, high liturgically (they love our stuff) and often believing what we do about the sacraments BUT ranging in their beliefs from accepting the teachings of the creeds to agnosticism, etc.; they're all on board with women priests and gay marriage, which they believe are self-evident truths about justice, which is why they're not Catholic or Orthodox. The third faction is middle-of-the-road, sort of like ELCA Lutheran with whom the Episcopalians are now sort of merged, theologically and liturgically moderate. They're skewing more liberal now that the Episcopalians are voting out conservative beliefs. The fourth faction, crypto-Catholics, are mostly becoming Catholic now that it's clear they lost the battle for the denomination. They were called Anglo-Catholics; now, the high-church liberals are likely to use that moniker, confusing since the earlier A-Cs were doctrinally conservative, imitating Rome.

St Raphael of Brooklyn was right: you don't know who in a given moment you're dealing with.

Ecumenical talks:

Catholics and Orthodox: Do you believe X? (Meaning: Do you believe it's an essential part of the church that all the faithful must believe?)Anglicans: Yes. (We allow it as an opinion but don't require it.)

The big difference from us Catholics and Orthodox is right in their Articles XIX and XXI: they believe the church is fallible therefore fungible, so they can and do change essentials by voting on them. Which is why they have women clergy and are about to have gay marriage. When you see that they believe in a fallible church, you realize their liberal moves in recent decades were inevitable. Throughout mainline Protestantism, including them, apostasy, formal rejection of the teaching of the creeds, is only a vote away.

By the way, it seems that most English Calvinists including the Anglicans lost their faith at the 'Enlightenment'. Lots of America's founding fathers, such as George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, and Benjamin Franklin, were unbelieving nominal Anglicans. The Sixties only made it more obvious.

Catholicism and Orthodoxy have slightly different approaches to the same one-true-church claim. There is an allowable hardline Catholic opinion that all non-Catholics are going to hell. But Catholicism teaches that the Orthodox have grace: real bishops, real Mass. The Orthodox, on the other hand, allow the opinion that since the schism, Catholicism has been a fraud; you don't have to believe that but you may.

Good post. Concerning the last paragraph, I'd like to add that the underlying similarity between Catholic and Orthodox views of ecumenism becomes much more apparent if you consider Catholic-thought-on-Catholicism-and-Orthodoxy and Orthodox-thought-on-EOism-and-OOism.

2) Yes, I realize that, but I also don't really care. I also consider Chalcedonians to be "protestants" (in some sense) in that they have abandoned the pure, untainted Christian faith by accepting Chalcedon and the Tome. That being said, I still would not compare them (or RCs for that matter) to the malicious and heretical movement known as reformed protestantism. There simply is no other religious movement on the planet which has misled and misguided so many under the guise of Christianity. I cannot even begin to describe how much I despise this evil, deviant, and heretical set of sects. I pray for the adherents of protestantism to leave their heresy and come home.

Wow.

I agree, wow.

Actually, this touches on one of my reasons for not becoming Orthodox (not the only one, or even the main one): It's too "anti-" for my taste.

2) Yes, I realize that, but I also don't really care. I also consider Chalcedonians to be "protestants" (in some sense) in that they have abandoned the pure, untainted Christian faith by accepting Chalcedon and the Tome. That being said, I still would not compare them (or RCs for that matter) to the malicious and heretical movement known as reformed protestantism. There simply is no other religious movement on the planet which has misled and misguided so many under the guise of Christianity. I cannot even begin to describe how much I despise this evil, deviant, and heretical set of sects. I pray for the adherents of protestantism to leave their heresy and come home.

Wow.

I agree, wow.

Actually, this touches on one of my reasons for not becoming Orthodox (not the only one, or even the main one): It's too "anti-" for my taste.

FWIW, I have never met an Orthodox Christian irl that spewed such venom towards other Christians. I disagree strongly w/ protestantism, but the language here is rather strong.

Actually, this touches on one of my reasons for not becoming Orthodox (not the only one, or even the main one): It's too "anti-" for my taste.

Like TheTrisagion said, most Orthodox that I've met IRL are quite friendly - or at the very least indifferent - to other Christians in general.

I think, perhaps, this strong "anti-" mentality often seen online is more restricted to the internet than the real world. Likewise, I've seen strong views among (Latin) internet-Catholics, but they're nothing like the Catholics I actually meet (with the odd exception of some older folks). Protestants too, for the most part (some of them, though...).

Actually, this touches on one of my reasons for not becoming Orthodox (not the only one, or even the main one): It's too "anti-" for my taste.

Like TheTrisagion said, most Orthodox that I've met IRL are quite friendly - or at the very least indifferent - to other Christians in general.

I think, perhaps, this strong "anti-" mentality often seen online is more restricted to the internet than the real world. Likewise, I've seen strong views among (Latin) internet-Catholics, but they're nothing like the Catholics I actually meet (with the odd exception of some older folks). Protestants too, for the most part (some of them, though...).

There are crazies in any religion. The prots have Jack Chick, Bob Jones University and company. Islamists have jihadists, RCs have SSPX, Orthodoxy has their kooks too.

Fogey, it seems to me if you think the essential bit of being a Christian is making sure homosexuality is always regarded as a sin, and not just a sin but a sin that is so vile it prohibits a person from participating in holy orders, something is very, very wrong with your spiritual formation.

This is the kind of rhetoric that makes me wonder why we even bother trying to have a dialogue.

Fogey, it seems to me if you think the essential bit of being a Christian is making sure homosexuality is always regarded as a sin, and not just a sin but a sin that is so vile it prohibits a person from participating in holy orders, something is very, very wrong with your spiritual formation.

This is the kind of rhetoric that makes me wonder why we even bother trying to have a dialogue.

Right, it's like trying to have a discussion with a crazy person. Pope Benedict's point at Regensburg regarding Islam. The Western God is rational, asking man to conform himself to the reality God made. The Muslim God is crazy. The best you can get from such interfaith dialogue, and it's a long shot, is the infidels won't try to kill or enslave you anymore.

Classical Protestantism kept from Catholicism the ancient Greek philosophers' (Aristotle) understanding of reason as conforming yourself to reality. The 'Enlightenment' thinkers did too, even though they moved farther from the church. But the Protestants are founded on bad principles, private judgement. The Sixties blew the mainline open. Out went the country-club cultural conservatism (the Episcopalians as the Republicans at prayer); in went the modern Christian super-heresy of political correctness. Hello, Crazytown. Just like the Muslims.

So a rational conversation with them is now impossible. They FEEL feminism and homosexualism are self-evident truths (again, they're Christian heretics; they're trying to stand up for the oppressed), and if the Catholics and evangelicals disagree, they're just dumb bigots.

Dialogue with the Anglicans would make sense now if Britain were still like in the 1800s, with Catholics an oppressed minority (like Christian dhimmi in Muslim countries) under a powerful Anglican Church. Today the Anglicans have no power: they're Episcopalians and evangelicals duking it out in a small denomination in an irreligious country (Britain). So, yes, Catholics and Orthodox shouldn't waste their time with the Anglicans.

Again, among the Episcopalians you have liberal high church: they believe our creeds, they believe what we do about the sacraments, and, unlike Catholic liberals, they love our stuff (trad liturgies). But it's all on their Protestant private-judgement terms, not the church's. Again, they hold feminism and homosexualism to be self-evident. So they're not Catholic and not interested in becoming Catholic. You're talking to the followers of Crazytown's God. A waste.

There's the irony that Anglican congregationalism made Anglo-Catholic parishes possible, which at best kept a charming form of pre-conciliar Catholic practice when the Catholic Church wanted nothing to do with it anymore. But again, they're in a mainline Protestant denomination, Crazytown, so that couldn't last.

Classical Protestantism kept from Catholicism the ancient Greek philosophers' (Aristotle) understanding of reason as conforming yourself to reality. The 'Enlightenment' thinkers did too, even though they moved farther from the church. But the Protestants are founded on bad principles, private judgement. The Sixties blew the mainline open. Out went the country-club cultural conservatism (the Episcopalians as the Republicans at prayer); in went the modern Christian super-heresy of political correctness. Hello, Crazytown. Just like the Muslims.

Classical Protestantism kept from Catholicism the ancient Greek philosophers' (Aristotle) understanding of reason as conforming yourself to reality. The 'Enlightenment' thinkers did too, even though they moved farther from the church. But the Protestants are founded on bad principles, private judgement. The Sixties blew the mainline open. Out went the country-club cultural conservatism (the Episcopalians as the Republicans at prayer); in went the modern Christian super-heresy of political correctness. Hello, Crazytown. Just like the Muslims.

Aristotle is bad and so is scholasticism.

Right, right, right, 'Western captivity' so back to Plato and the theologian of the week on the church fathers, yadda.

I can sympathize with a lot of what you're saying (and I've read your statements on these issues over the years on many different message boards), but you seem to leaving out: (1) the large numbers of conservatives in the world wide Anglican Communion, particularly in the Global South, who are against the innovations of tEC and CoE; and (2) the smaller number of Continuing Anglicans, who are socially conservative and tend to jive with 'seven councils, seven sacraments', as per the Affirmation of St Louis. What are your thoughts regarding either of these?

Anglicanism is strange. It is amazing how Calvinists and Crypto-Papists can be in communion with eachother.

That's because the Church of England was created as a government agency, not a denomination. Things just snowballed from there.

Though I admit it is deliciously ironic how a church created over a divorce generally denies remarriage to divorcees today.

I'm sorry, Arachne, but it was not a "divorce" but an annulment from a marriage that had previous required a special permit from the Bishop of Rome in order to occur. Cathrine of Aragon was married to Henry Tudor's elder brother Arthur for about 6 months or so before he died as a teenager. Since Henry VI did not want to lose the dowry and other benefits (and some alliance) it took some time, permission from Rome and the death of the king before Henry VIII was able to marry her.

Nor did it "start" there.

Nor if everything else were true including the misstatement the Church of England doesn't allow for remarriage would anything be ironic.

And when you call yourself anything, you are a denomination.

Again I don't know much, but when did the Church in England begin to understand itself as the Church of England?

But again, I know very little about all this. One of few things less interesting than American history is English history.

Certainly if we can have informative posts about Daoism and Buddhism of varying stripes, someone here knows something about this beyond vague stereotypes and misconceptions.

Henry VIII wanted a change of jurisdiction, with himself as head of the Church in England instead of the Pope. He favoured Catholic practices himself, and the Reformation didn't go far during his lifetime. More Protestant forms were adopted under Edward VI, when Thomas Cranmer was Archbishop of Canterbury. The definite turning point was probably the publication of the Book of Common Prayer in 1549. Mary I tried to reestablish Catholicism, so Elizabeth I swung further the other way when her turn came.

As for the CoE not allowing remarriage to divorcees... I said generally. It is left to the discretion of each vicar whether they are willing to perform the rite, and a great majority aren't. It would have made things much easier for me and my husband if they were.

I am sorry that you had such a bad experience. Here in the U.S. the rule is that when a couple wishes to be married in an Episcopal parish and one or the other (or both I suppose) has been divorced the local Bishop must be informed and marriage counseling is required as a way to "Let's make sure that this time it works". That was the case with an in-law of mine, so this is family knowledge.

Ebor

Logged

"I wish they would remember that the charge to Peter was "Feed my sheep", not "Try experiments on my rats", or even "Teach my performing dogs new tricks". - C. S. Lewis

I can sympathize with a lot of what you're saying (and I've read your statements on these issues over the years on many different message boards), but you seem to leaving out: (1) the large numbers of conservatives in the world wide Anglican Communion, particularly in the Global South, who are against the innovations of tEC and CoE; and (2) the smaller number of Continuing Anglicans, who are socially conservative and tend to jive with 'seven councils, seven sacraments', as per the Affirmation of St Louis. What are your thoughts regarding either of these?

1. As I mentioned, in England it's Episcopalians and evangelicals duking it out in the same denomination. The Global South: conservative but Protestant.

2. The Continuum: conservative but divided, a bunch of little sects. The conservative Presbyterians have their act together, forming the PCA. Ditto conservative Lutherans in the Missouri Synod. Not so with Continuing Anglicans.

Well, a lot of mainstream Anglicans feel the same way in reverse, if for different reasons and less rudely (because, after all, we are Anglicans). Al Kimel told, ages ago, that Anglo-Orthodox "discussion" tended to break down because the Orthodox were only only interested in talking, not listening. The only reason why it hangs on more with ARCIC, I presume, is that there is a dissident Catholicism out there to be the other side of the argument.